journal of the linguistic society of papua new guinea syntax vfinal 2.pdf · 31). major word...
TRANSCRIPT
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
126
Journal of the Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea
ISSN: 0023-1959
Vol. 30, 2012
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
127
Syntax through the Wide-Angle Lens of Dialectics By Olga Temple Linguistics & Modern Languages School of Humanities & Social Sciences UPNG
Abstract I contend that we cannot understand the structures of language (verbal thought), if we do not understand the mechanism of thought. After a brief look at traditional syntactic theory, I propose a model of sentence analysis (G-nalysis), which, I argue, better serves language users – the ‘spinners’ of their ‘webs of significance.’ In contrast to the purely descriptive approach to language, aimed at documenting its fleeting physical forms, G-nalysis tries to identify the logical relationships, the functions of words and groups of words (phrases and clauses) in the nexus of the sentence. Expounding on the two universal principles of sentence structure (synthesis and analysis), and showing how they operate in all human languages, I argue that dialectics facilitates students’ understanding of syntax at all levels of education.
Specifically, I argue in favour of adopting G-nalysis in the teaching of grammar in secondary schools – in Papua New Guinea and beyond. Keywords: generalization, dialectics, dialectical linguistics, syntax, syntactic analysis, ambiguity
I. TRADITIONAL WORD-BASED PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR
Traditionally, word-based prescriptive grammars distinguished eight parts of speech by individual
words’ functions in the sentence (that is, by ‘what a word does in a sentence’):
Word Function Nouns name things Pronouns stand instead of nouns Adjectives describe (modify) nouns Verbs ‘action’ words Adverbs describe verbs & adjectives
Conjunctions join words, phrases & clauses Prepositions Are the ‘connective tissue’; they show the ‘positions’ of things in space and time
Interjections expressions of speakers’ feelings & attitudes interjected, or ‘thrown into’ the midst of a clause: the ‘SPICES’
The close-up focus on the functions of individual words, viewed in isolation even in the context of the
sentence, overlooked the fluid nature of word-meanings in use, the multi-layered relationships between
word-meanings in the sentence mosaic. While focusing on single words, we miss the forest for the trees!
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
128
II. DESCRIPTIVE SYNTAX
In an attempt to capture these relationships between words in the sentence, descriptive linguistics
widened the scope of the ‘Parts of Speech’ concept to include groups of words (phrases), viewed as
categories of lexical items defined by their morphological or syntactic behavior (Tallerman: 1998, p.
31). Major word classes, such as Verb Phrase (VP), Noun Phrase (NP), Adjective Phrase (Adj.P), and
Prepositional Phrase (PP), are distinguished by the morphology, functions, and patterns of distribution
of phrase ‘heads’ [this covers both the slots the words can appear in and the modifiers that co-occur
with them]. Because of the primary focus on single words (like ‘heads’ in a phrase), and because
languages vary so widely in their physical structures, descriptive syntactic analysis concludes that word
classes in different languages also vary:
‘…Groups of closed class words often pair up with a specific lexical word, such as noun or an adjective. To count as a distinct word class, a set of words must have some properties which distinguish them from other word classes in the language. If we don’t find any such properties, then it would be unscientific to make artificial divisions in the data. … It is important … not to expect all languages to look the same. For instance, we shouldn’t think that just because, say, English and Italian have an open class of adjectives, then all languages must have one. On the other hand, linguists now know that languages don’t vary from each other at random. We can expect there to be a finite set of possible different word classes, from which each language ‘selects’ its own set of classes’ (Tallerman: 1998, p. 49).
Based strictly on morphological description, the Igbo language of Nigeria appears to have only eight
adjectives, 1 while other languages have ‘very few or even no prepositions’ (Tallerman: 1998, p. 34) –
Latvian, for example, has no preposition ‘in’!
The sheer diversity of linguistic forms seemingly contradicts the idea of universal principles of human
understanding which underlie and actively shape the grammars of all human languages. Yet, we know
that looks can be deceptive – to paraphrase Shakespeare, ‘What’s in a form?’ All human languages,
regardless of their physical forms, express the same logical relationships that human minds see between
things in our 4-D physical world – relationships based on resemblance, contiguity in space/time, and
causality. Latvian may lack the preposition ‘in’, but that does not mean that this spatial relationship does
not exist in Latvian minds; it simply means that the speakers use a different way of expressing it:
Nominative: galds (table) Locative: galdaa (in the table) aviize (newspaper) aviizee (in the newspaper)
While the forms of the physical structures (morphology) differ, their essence (meaning) remains the
same. Formal tests used to categorize phrases by the morphological ‘looks’ and patterns of distribution
1 ‘Igbo has 8 adjectives (they are actually converses); the English equivalents are: hot/cold; young/old; black/white;
beautiful/ugly. The 'dispute' however rests on nouns that function as adjectives which some linguists insist should be classified as adjectives’ (Prof. Ogunkeye, Funmi: Linguistics, University of Jos, Nigeria).
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
129
of their ‘heads’ lose sight of the actual grammatical meaning of the phrases, of their collective function.
By implication, Kwamera adjectives, indeed, must be viewed as verbs, while in Igbo they become nouns
(Tallerman: 1998, pp. 44-45). René van den Berg and Robert Busenitz, the authors of the recently
published Grammar of Balantak, a language of Eastern Sulawesi , make a more nuanced claim that
“Adjectival concepts (such as ‘big’, ‘good’ and ‘red’) are treated as stative verbs in Balantak,” and agree
that the twelve word classes they distinguish for Balantak2 may not be the only conceivable classification
(René van den Berg & Robert L. Busenitz: 2012, p. 27). Categorizing words by their ‘looks’ (morphology /
syntactic distribution) and ‘fixed’ grammatical functions, assigned to them outside of each sentence
mosaic, is indeed bound to be subjective to individual perception, for we all view the world through our
own Mind’s Eye and make sense of things in our own heads, based on our own personal experience. Yet,
descriptive linguistic analysis has been generally deemed to reflect scientific facts.
I will argue that we cannot attain understanding of a complex whole (such as human language) by
successively focusing on its parts (phonetics/phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics etc.) –
‘The Whole is more than the sum of its parts’ (Aristotle:
Metaphysics, Book I). Despite acknowledging the
overlap between syntax and semantics, descriptive
linguistics separates the two: syntactic theory, as
illustrated above, focuses on the mechanical description
of physical structures, while propositional semantic
theories view sentences and their parts as bearers of
some fixed ‘objective’ meaning, and attempt to pair the
two, using Frege’s Theory of Reference adjusted, in the
case of double-indexing semantics, for propositional
attitude ascription and circumstances of evaluation3.
Ferdinand de Saussure dissected the Linguistic Sign into
word and meaning (the Signifier and the Signified), and
examined its ‘body’ and ‘soul’ separately, fixed in time,
lifeless. Descriptive linguistics does virtually the same, only it dissects the larger units of language
(propositions), and tries to pair them with their ‘objective’ meanings. However, sentence-meanings
cannot be ‘fixed’ in dictionaries. Sentence meaning is not merely the sum total of the word meanings in
it – it is the mosaic image that people ‘see’ through the lens of their own individual experience. The
meaning of a sentence mosaic is a complex image/generalization, and each Mind’s Eye may see the
‘picture’ shaped by the grammatical relations between words in the sentence differently – which makes
language inherently ambiguous. Look, for example, at this image above – people with normal eyesight
will see Einstein, whereas near-sighted people will see Marilyn Monroe. Likewise, the vision of each
Mind’s Eye and, therefore, what it actually ‘sees’, vary according to individual experience (i.e., level of
2 nouns, verbs, pronouns, articles, demonstratives, numerals, quantifiers, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions,
interjections, and particles 3 Quine (1970), Kripke (1972), Kaplan (1989), etc.
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
130
cognitive development, physical and psychological state, social and cultural environment, and
circumstances of communication).
Inherent ‘indeterminacy’ of word meanings in use – another example:
What you see as the ‘hands’ of the highwayman below could as well have been the fins of a fish, or the
feet of a duck in another pattern; it is the ‘picture’ that each Mind’s Eye sees which makes parts of the
whole to be what they are in each person’s understanding.
Photos taken in a Highlands hotel (FB): East Sepik highwaymen Gents’ toilet sign
‘In use, words and their meanings are relatively independent of each other’ (Vygotsky: 1934). A lot of
meaning in our communications goes unspoken – meanings are more often than not implied, and so can
be interpreted differently:
‘Damn’ in this sentence may imply, ‘this is too much’/ ‘what cheek!’/ ‘I can’t stand it anymore,’ etc. Who? S1(implied) V1 C1(IO) + (DO) S2 V2 C2(DO)
// (You) / Give / me where to stand//, and // I /will move / the earth//. (Archimedes) Noun phrase conj. What? What?
Every generalization is an act of thought, performed by human minds – collectively, we ‘coin’ denotative
word-meanings; individually, we ‘spin’ out of them our ‘webs of significance’ – complex generalizations,
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
131
such as mosaics of sentence meaning. Because descriptive syntax ignores the process of generalization,
the heart of all linguistic structures,4 detailed grammatical descriptions without their logical
underpinnings have become largely incomprehensible and irrelevant to non-linguists.
III. DIALECTICAL SYNTAX
Dialectical analysis uses the universal principles of human understanding to unravel the intricacies of
syntax. Through its wide-angle perspective, traditional ‘parts of speech’ are nothing but the natural
associations we make by perceived resemblance, contiguity, and cause/effect: adjectives connect ideas
by resemblance; adverbs – by resemblance or contiguity, or cause/effect, while nouns are conceived by
all three kinds of association. Traditional abstract concepts (‘parts of speech’) thus become concrete
manifestations of verbal thought /human perception of the physical world. In contrast to traditional
word-based grammar, dialectical syntax recognizes that groups of words can form ‘chunks’ of meaning
and, therefore, groups of words (phrases and clauses) can perform one function (Noun, Adj. or Adverb).
For example, in the mosaic below, it is groups of tiles that form the bird’s wings, tail, eye, etc.:
Floor mosaic in Dallas International Airport, Texas (02/2012)
Generalizing syntactic analysis (G-nalysis) focuses not only on how single words function in the sentence,
but also on how groups of words form chunks of meaning in the nexus of the overall sentence mosaic.
4 Temple, O. The Rational Language Mechanism: Key to Understanding Syntax. Journal of English Studies, Vol. 1,
2009, pp. 62-81; Limitations of Arbitrariness. The South Pacific Journal of Philosophy & Culture, Vol. 10, 2008-2009, pp. 107-125.
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
132
This method of analysis rests on a holistic, dialectical understanding of Language as a social means of
verbal thought, a collectively created tool for thought exchange – a system of social signs which
speakers put together to spin their unique ‘webs of significance.’ Viewed as an act of thought, language
comes alive as the generalizations of living, thinking minds (collective and individual). The contradictions
inherent in the complex whole of language, its psycho-physical, social-individual and historical dualities,
necessarily make the mechanism of generalization (associations by resemblance, contiguity, &
cause/effect) the ‘Rational Mechanism’ of language (Hume: 1748; Temple: 2009, 2011).
We associate ideas by resemblance, contiguity, & cause/effect, because throughout our evolution, our
thoughts have reflected our experiences in the 4D world, our perceptions of resemblance between
things and the various spatial, temporal and causal relationships between them. These relationships are
gist of the so-called ‘journalistic’ questions, Who, Does What, to Whom, When, Where, and Why? To
answer these questions, we make connections between things based on some perceived resemblance,
contiguity in space & time, and cause/effect – expressed by word-meanings that answer these questions
(single-handedly or ‘working together’ in groups); we call these word functions ‘Parts of Speech.’ The
associations that drive the process of thought result in generalization on multiple levels; they connect
word-meanings into ‘chunks’ of meaning in the mosaics of complex generalizations. Dialectical syntax
uses the Rational Mechanism of Language (the principles of generalization) to identify the grammatical
functions of words and groups of words in the sentence, the ‘connections’ our minds make between
them in our ‘webs of significance.’
Word
Function Answer Questions:
Nouns
Words/phrases/clause that name things What? Who?
Pronouns
stand instead of nouns What? Who?
Adjectives
Words/ phrases/ clauses that describe nouns by RESEMBLANCE
Which? What kind?
Verbs name actions or states of being, while carrying also the meaning of time [SYNTHESIS/ CONJUGATION with SUBJECT]:
A verb is that which, in addition to its proper meaning, carries with it the notion of time … It is a sign of something said of something else. (Aristotle)
Adverbs
RESEMBLANCE: describe verbs by CONTIGUITY I in space/time: CAUSE/EFFECT:
*Adverbs also describe adjectives (qualities)
How? Where? When?
Why? With what consequence? On what
condition? et cetera
Conjunctions join words, phrases & clauses [CONTIGUITY]
Prepositions Are the ‘connective tissue’; they show relative ‘positions’ of things in space and time [CONTIGUITY]
Interjections expressions of speakers’ feelings & attitudes interjected, or ‘thrown into’ the midst of a clause: the ‘SPICES’
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
133
Dialectical approach to syntax has another advantage – we need very few terms /simple concepts, i.e.:
The traditional 8 parts of speech
The sentence, S/V/C, nexal pattern
Noun, Adjective, & Adverb clauses
Noun, Adjective, & Adverb phrases, and
The two universal principles of sentence structure:
o Synthesis of what we speak about with what we say about it [the nexus of the Subject,
Verb & Compliment (S/V/C), in whichever order they come], and
o Analysis (aka Modification/Recursion): adding detail, ‘color’/‘pixels’ to any of the major
sentence constituents (S/V/C).
IV. GENERALIZING SENTENCE ANALYSIS (G-NALYSIS)
The synthesis of generalization holds sentence mosaics together. The analysis of generalization ‘zooms
in’ on parts of the ‘mosaic’, adding detail, colur to them, increasing their pixel resolution. ‘Generalizing’
syntactic analysis aims to elucidate both aspects of the process; therefore, G-nalysis uses a two-step
procedure:
1. The first step is to identify the major ‘parts’ of all the ‘nexuses’ present in the overall synthesis
(sentence mosaic).
2. The second step, once all the S/V/C patterns have been identified, is to figure out how all the
words, phrases, and clauses (S/V/Cs) relate to each other – what do they actually do in the
sentence? This is done by asking the relevant logical questions, which indicate the ’part of
speech’ (function) of the word, phrase, or clause in the sentence.
G-nalysis uses simple diagrams to show the relationships between nexal patterns (quadrangles =
independent SVCs, and triangles = dependent SVCs):
C1(PA) +(IO), not (IO)
V1 V1 C1(PA) C2 (IO) S2 V2 C3(IO) S3 V3
// I / am / only responsible for what / I / say /, not /for what / you / understand //. How? What? What?
S1 V1 C1
Two Noun Clauses = Indirect Objects embedded in the Complement1 slot not
Thus, it is the common function (purpose, the fusion of semantic and grammatical meaning) of words
working together that binds them into a unit of compound meaning, either naming something in the
nexus (noun function) or adding detail to a sentence constituent (adjective or adverb function).
Phrases are different from dependent clauses only structurally: while clauses have their own nexal
patterns (S/V/Cs), phrases do not; both phrases and dependent clauses are defined by their common
function: words in them work together as one part of speech (noun, adjective, or adverb).
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
134
Thus, the universal Rational Mechanism of Language (generalization) works through the synthesis of
word-meanings into the nexus of the sentence and analysis (description, modification, specification) of
the nexus constituents:
Synthesis connects the ‘bones’ of the ‘skeleton’ into the ‘Subject, Verb, Complement’ pattern of the proposition; their nexus (in whichever order they come)represents the linear (syntagmatic) relationship between them, and
Analysis zooms in on the major parts of the sentence mosaic & describes them by resemblance, cause/effect & contiguity in space/time – it puts ‘flesh’ on the bones of the sentence.
The mechanism of spinning human ‘webs of significance,’ infinite in their diversity, operates without
exception in all human languages. Different grammars use different tactics to build their sentence
mosaics, but the strategy of synthesizing complex generalizations through only three types of
association our minds make is universal. Look, for example, how this Rational Language Mechanism, so
elegant in its simplicity, expresses the same causal relationship in so many different ways:
English: ‘I think, therefore, I am’:
Yoruba: Mo wa láàyè nitoripé mo n ronú.
I be alive for reason that (because) I Asp:think
Mo n ronú nítorí náà mo wa láàyè
I Asp:think for reason that (for that reason /therefore) I be alive
Krio: Ah de tink, so na mi.
Japanese: Ware omou, yueni ware ari. Watashi wa kangaemasu, dakara watashi wa sonzai shimasu. Latvian: Es domāju – tādēļ es esmu.
German: Ich denke, also bin ich.
Dutch: Ik denk, daarom ik besta.
Russian: Я мыслю, следовательно, я существую.
Greek: Σκέφτομαι άρα υπάρχω .
Bahasa Indonesia: Saya pikir, mahanya Saya ada.
Mussau: Aghi nongina, aghi anna.
Telei of S. Bougainville: Nne aposi, eguko nne.
Tolai: Iau nukia, ba iau iau.
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
135
How different speakers use words or perceive the
relationships between words/ groups of words in the
sentence mosaic determines their functions in the
sentence and affects the overall meaning of the
sentence mosaic.
FLEXIBILITY OF G-NALYSIS Because we all make sense of things in our own
heads, people often ‘see’ the connections between
words differently, making different ‘sense’ of the
same mosaic image. This tongue-in-cheek FB
comment is an example of this kind of ambiguity:
G-nalysis effectively represents different ‘visions’ of
connections between word-meanings and groups of
word-meanings in the sentence mosaic – moreover, G-nalysis encourages analytical thinking… So long
as the relationships between words, phrases and clauses ‘make sense’ and are supported by the way the
words/groups of words answer the common-sense logical questions, they are always a possibility, and
students enjoy figuring out all the possible relationships between them.
In this case, the verbal noun phrase ‘be stoned’ can be interpreted as the infinitive of the passive verb or
the infinitive of the stative verb ‘be’ + the past participle of ‘stone’ functioning as predicate adjective:
S1 V1 C1(IO) S2 V2 C2 (P verbal N)
// If a man / lays /with another man,/ he / should / be stoned.// S1 V1 C1(IO) S2 V2 C2 (P verbal N) + (PA)
// If a man / lays /with another man,/ he / should / be stoned.//
Dialectical linguistics views word-
meaning as the smallest unit of
language, because it has all the
psycho-physical and socio-historical
properties of the whole (Vygotsky:
1934; Temple: 2011). A word without
meaning is not a word of language
(‘nonsense’ has meaning), and
meaning comes into existence only
through words. Yet, we can use
meaningful words in grammatical
patterns, and yet find that together,
they make no ‘sense’ at all, as in:
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
136
This happens when we cannot ‘connect’ parts of the discourse mosaic (words, phrases, clauses, etc.)
into a meaningful pattern, using the logic of human understanding (associations by resemblance,
contiguity, and cause/effect).
Unlike Chomsky’s ‘Green ideas sleep furiously,’ the example above has clauses that do make sense on
their own, but not together, for lack of logical connections. Dialectical sentence analysis examines the
synthetic sense we, thinkers, make of word mosaics and how they clump together into larger chunks of
meaning. Our minds look for some connection between ideas (by resemblance, or contiguity, or cause/
effect, or by all three associations) in order to ‘see’ the ‘whole’ pattern. G-nalysis focuses on the logic of
these connections between words and groups of words in the sentence mosaic, because it is that which
determines their grammatical functions.
A couple examples of structural ambiguity, and how G-nalysis deals with it:
Since we all make sense of things only in our own heads, people often perceive the relationships
between word-meanings /chunks of word-meanings in the sentence mosaic differently. G-nalysis uses
the universal principles of human understanding to diagram those generalizations by identifying the
various logical relationships between parts of the ‘mosaic’ that people ‘see’ through the lens of their
personal experience. G-nalysis captures and dissects the fluid ‘Indeterminacy of
Meaning’ – a source of numerous jokes and puns! This makes G-nalysis a lot of fun
(which students of syntax highly appreciate Re: Appendix for more linguistic
jokes).
What? C(PN)
S1 V1 S2 V2 C2 (DO + PN)
// Atoms / are / what / makes / us all matter//. What?
C(PN)
S1 V1 S2 V2 C2 (DO + Verbal Noun)
// Atoms / are / what / makes / us all matter//.
Do what?
Some more examples of G-nalysis:
Example 1. George Zimmerman got over 200k in donations on his website, OJ is like "why couldn't they have had PayPal back when I was killing people!" - (Bill Maher on FB 04/05/2012) Where?
S1 V1 What? C1(DO)
// George Zimmerman / got / over 200 K / in donations on his website, // How? Adv. phrase adv. of place phrase
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
137
Which kind? C2(PA)
S2 V2 V3 S3 C3(DO) + (DO) S4 V4 C4(DO)
// OJ / is / like "why couldn't / they / have had / PayPal/ back / when / I / was killing/ people!" What? Why couldn’t they … when?
, Noun clause
Adverb of Time clause
Example 2. I am hard at work, being idle. (Oscar Wilde) S V C(PA) How?
// I / am / hard at work, being idle //. Adj. phrase Adv. of manner phrase Simple sentence:
Example 3. For Spacex, the next few hours will be nail-biting. (CNN commenting on the launch of the Mars explorer) C.1(IO) S V C.2(PA)
// For Spacex, / the next few hours / will be / nail-biting.// Simple sentence:
Example 4. I am so hip, even my errors are correct (Nikki Giovanni: Ego Trippin’)
S1 V1 C1(PA) S2 V2 C2(PA)
// I / am / so hip // even my errors / are / correct.// How hip?
Example 5. Thanks for the remind. [A FB comment, 26062012]
C S V (IO) (DO)
// [ I / give / you ] Thanks for the remind // (implication) Adv. of Reason phrase
Why do I give you thanks? Simple sentence
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
138
Because the ‘remind’ (a noun in this case) is the ‘thing’ for which I am thanking you, this sentence could
also be analyzed as:
S V C(IO) + (DO) + (IO)
// [ I / give / you ] Thanks for the remind. //
(implication) For what?
Example 6. Keep it down - I am on the phone!
Here, ‘on the phone’ is presented literally, as an Adverb of Place phrase, in which case it answers the ‘Where?’ question and belongs in the V slot of the S/V/C nexus; but it could also be understood as a Predicate Adjective phrase describing the Subject (= I’m busy), or an Indirect Object of the verb ‘be’ – in both cases, it would then fill the Compliment slot). S1 V1 C1(DO) S2 V2 C(zero)
//[You]/Keep/it /down // - //I / am on the phone // Adv. of Place phrase How? Where?
[ S1] V1 C1(DO) S2 V2 C2(PA)
//[You]/Keep/it /down // - //I / am / on the phone // Compound sentence
How? Which kind? [ S1] V1 C1(DO) S2 V2 C2(PA)
//[You]/Keep/it /down // - //I / am / on the phone // Compound sentence
How? On what?
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
139
Example 7.
Everything that civilized humanity remembers and knows at present, all the accumulated experience
in books, monuments and manuscripts – all this colossal expansion of the human memory, without
which there could be no historical and cultural development, Is due precisely to external human
memorization based on symbols (Vygotsky: 1930).
Which everything?
S1.1 S2 V2.1 V2.2
//Everything that civilized humanity remembers and knows at present, Which experience? S1.2
all the accumulated experience in books, monuments and manuscripts – Which expansion? S1.3 C3 V3 S3
all this colossal expansion of human memory, without which there could be no historical & cultural development, Which expansion?
Why? Which memorization? V1 / C1 (ZERO)
/is due precisely to external human memorization based on symbols // Adjective clauses
As can be seen from the above examples, syntactic analysis becomes easily comprehensible when
grammatical functions of words and groups of words in the sentence are assigned based on the logical
relations between them. The logic of human thought – generalization – is universal; therefore, the
principles of human understanding (associations by resemblance, contiguity, and cause/effect)
determine the grammatical functions of words and groups of words in the sentence (that is, the ‘parts of
speech’). Consequently, all human languages have only eight parts of speech (word classes).
S1.1 , S1.2 , S1.3 V1 C1(ZERO)
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
140
G-nalysis uses the logic of human thought to expose the grammatical functions of words in the sentence
and the relationships between them – that is why it is easily comprehensible to students of language at
all levels. It is for the reason of this simplicity that it should be taught in secondary schools, to improve
the students’ language and thinking skills.
V. CONCLUSION
I have argued that the generalizing syntactic analysis (G-nalysis):
Harnesses the energy and creativity of living, thinking minds spinning their unique individual
‘webs of significance’: ‘There is nothing that is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.’
Uses the universal mechanism of human thought (generalization) to explain syntactic structures
G-nalysis assigns grammatical functions to words and groups of words (phrases and clauses) in
the main sentence according to perceived logical relationships between them.
o The purpose of the G-nalysis is to (1) identify all the nexal patterns in the sentence, and
(2) determine how all of the clauses (S/V/Cs) and phrases (groups of words that function
as adjectives, adverbs, or nouns), as well as individual words relate to each other.
Because G-nalysis reflects the workings of individual minds, it is effective in the analysis of
ambiguous sentences.
The simplicity and ‘naturalness’ of generalizing sentence analysis renders it enjoyable and
effective at all levels of linguistic study, and particularly in secondary schools.
References Carnap, R. 1947. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Davidson, D. 1984. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans G., and McDowell, J. (eds.). 1976. Truth and Meaning: Essays in Semantics, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Frege, G. 1892. “On Sense and Reference,” in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob
Frege. Peter Geach and Max Black (eds.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1960.
Hume, D. 1748. A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I: Of the Understanding, Part I: Of Ideas, Their Composition, Connexion, Abstraction, etc., Section IV: Of the Connexion or Association of Ideas.
Kripke, S. 1972. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Language & Linguistics in Melanesia Vol. 30, 2012 ISSN: 0023-1959
141
Tallerman, M. 1998. Understanding Syntax.
Temple, O. 2011. Genesutra: a Course in Dialectical Linguistics. UPNG University Press.
Temple, O. Language: captured ‘live’ through the lens of dialectics. Language & Linguistics in Melanesia,
Vol. 29, 2011, pp. 31-53. www.langlxmelanesia.com
Temple, O. The Rational Language Mechanism: Key to Understanding Syntax. Journal of English Studies, Vol. 1, 2009, pp. 62-81.
Temple, O. Limitations of Arbitrariness. The South Pacific Journal of Philosophy & Culture, Vol. 10, 2008-2009, pp. 107-125.
van den Berg, R. & Busenitz, R. 2012. Grammar of Balantak, a language of Eastern Sulawesi. SIL eBook
40
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Anscombe, G.E.M. (trans.), New York: MacMillan.